BABULAL Vs. DR. VASUDEO KABRO AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has preferred this appeal under Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, feeling aggrieved by the award dated 4th Dec., 2000 passed by 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 44/1999, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant, claiming compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000.00 for the injuries sustained to him, in a motor accident.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 26th Nov., 1996, appellant together with respondent No. 1 was travelling in a maruti van number MP-13 D-708 from Padana to Ujjain. This van was being driven by respondent No. 2, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3. At about 11.30 p.m. in the night, this van was being driven by respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently, thereby van dashed with on the side of the bridge and thereby the appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately admitted in District Hospital, Ujjain and thereafter remained under treatment at Life Line Hospital, Indore. Still treatment is going on because of grievous injuries sustained to the appellant/claimant on his left leg. He suffered permanent disability. Doctor has inserted plate for the treatment of the bone concerned. He remained under treatment from 12th Sept., 1997 to 24th Sept., 1997 and thereafter in his home advised complete bed rest. During treatment, he spent near about Rs. 1,00,000.00 for his treatment. On these allegations, the appellant/claimant has filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the M.V. Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, claiming compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000.00 from the respondents jointly and severally. Learned Tribunal, after appreciation of the entire evidence on record, held, that it is not proved that this accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle concerned by respondent No. 2, therefore, respondent are not liable for the payment of any compensation amount to the appellant and, therefore, dismissed the claim petition vide impugned award dated 4th Dec., 2000. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned award, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 and 2 remained absent, after service in this appeal, whereas learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, while supporting the impugned award, submits that learned Tribunal, after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record, rightly concluded that this fact has not at all been proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle concerned by respondent No. 2 and rightly held that appellant is not entitled to get any compensation amount from the respondents, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.